(...) the preliminary results (...) suggest that the divergence of the Egyptian vs. Semitic lexicon is surprisingly significant. The surmised closeness of Egyptian and Chadic (...) should also be subject to further investigation. In addition, etymologies for several Egyptian lexemes cannot be sought on Afro-Asiatic grounds at all and have only distant (extra-Afro-Asiatic) African parallels (from Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, Khoisan).

The purpose of this study - a revised edition of a doctoral thesis, University of Liverpool, 1990 - is to establish, from the North-West Semitic side, the phonetic correspondences between North-West Semitic (Phoenician/Punic, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Ugaritic) and ancient Egyptian chronologically. In other words, the present study deals with how North-West Semitic scribes wrote Egyptian in their Semitic writing systems, with concentration on consonantal correspondences.

In the introduction it is pointed out there has been considerable confusion over phonetic correspondences between the languages, which go back to the fairly common unawareness of scholars that Semitic and Egyptian transliterated each other's languages differently with respect to the consonants. This comparative approach enables the author to establish the historical changes and real sound values of Egyptian consonants, which are to a large extent obscured by the extreme conservatism in the Egyptian writing system. Therefore, it is very difficult to establish sound values on the basis of hieroglyphic writings.

In contrast, Semitic scribes when writing Egyptian tried to transcribe it as they heard it, and therefore their records reflect directly the real sound values of Egyptian. Appropriate materials for the purpose are: Egyptian personal, divine and geographical names as well as Egyptian loanwords transcribed into Semitic. To this end, the author methodically investigates in five chapters Egyptian names and loanwords in Phoenician/Punic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Ugaritic and in the Akkadian of the el-Amarna Tablets. In each chapter the four categories of names and words are inventoried and the phonological correspondences analysed, while in the first three chapters an introductory section is added on the dates and provenances of the documents used from the several languages. On the basis of the examinations, the Egyptian names and loanwords are classified as "possibly," "probably" or "certainly" Egyptian.

The concluding chapter 6 deals with:

1) Consonantal correspondences; 2) Notes on the correspondences concerning glottal stops, sibilants, pharyngals and laryngals, and alveolars; 3) Phonetic changes, such as changes or the dropping of consonants, N-assimilation and prosthetic Aleph; 4) Matres lectionis; 5) Quantitative analysis of the Egyptian loanwords; 6) Light on the age and character of Egyptian terms in the Old Testament; 7) Hybrid names formed under Egyptian religious influences.

Since the Canaanite alphabet had no associated numerical signs, the scribes usually spelled out numbers in full. In the Hebrew form of the alphabet, however, Egyptian hieratic numerals were used as well, but this practice did not spread further north. The same phenomenon appears again in Hellenistic times when, following Greek custom, letters of the alphabet are used as numerals.

Under this title are collected articles by Giveon, mostly previously published in English and Hebrew, which are now translated into English, and all dealing with contacts between Egypt and Canaan. The book ends with a list of sources, and indexes, a general one as well as one on Biblical passages and Egyptian words.